It has been a little over a year since the so-called Climategate e-mails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. The e-mails showed the scientists behind the climate scare plotting to hide, delete and manipulate data. They denigrated scientists presenting differing views in order to force journals to publish only papers that promoted alarm about global warming. They turned “peer review” into review by friends, and made the reports of the IPCC no more than alarmist propaganda.

I said that the Climategate e-mails were leaked. The media has liked to claim that the e-mails were “illegally hacked,” but people looking at it clearly are quite sure that a member of the CRU was horrified and distressed by the perversion of science going on.

Since that time, the work of the IPCC has been largely discredited. They were found to be using papers from Greenpeace and ordinary mountaineers rather than the work of scientists. Their claims about African crop yields, the Amazon rainforest, disappearing mountain ice, claims about Dutch sea levels, the melting Himalayan glaciers, and trends in disaster losses — all false exaggerations.

There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way. The slight warming of the past 150 years is no different from previous natural warming periods, such as the worldwide medieval warm period from about 900 to 1200 AD. Global warming and cooling are closely correlated to variations in the sun, especially in its emission of charged particles. Carbon dioxide (CO²), a harmless, natural gas upon which green plants depend, is a feeble greenhouse gas. Its only significant absorption band (15 micron) is saturated, so adding more to the atmosphere has a small and diminishing effect.

Over the past half-billion years (the span of multicelled life), CO² levels have averaged more than 2000 ppm (parts per million) but with wild fluctuations, from more than 6000 ppm to less than 500 ppm. This has had no noticeable effect on global temperatures, which have remained remarkably constant for long periods, pointing to a stable global climate system, without which higher life might not be possible. This stability probably comes from low clouds, which increase when temperatures rise and have a powerful cooling effect by reflecting away sunlight.

The “hockey stick graph” was first published in Nature magazine in 1998, and then shown 6 times in the IPCC’s 2001 report. It showed temperatures in the northern hemisphere steady from 1000 to 1900 (compared to the long straight handle of a hockey stick) then suddenly rising to unprecedented heights in the 20th century (the blade of the hockey stick). No medieval warm period, long considered the most beneficent climate of all, which spawned the Renaissance, and wine grapes grew in England, and was well documented in history. The hockey stick was accepted with unquestioning faith by the IPCC and much of the scientific establishment. (Not too big on history, those folks).

The hockey stick theory was demolished by Steven McIntyre, an expert (and stubborn) statistician. He got hold of the data on which it was based,” and found outrageously wrong statistical methods, deliberate use of data known to be wrong, and other manipulation.”

Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) after 67 years. He wrote in his resignation letter: “the global warming scam with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful psuedoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the Climategate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organises the facts very well) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

The temperature data on which the CRU supposedly based their work on climate is unavailable, apparently lost. NASA has admitted that they were just using the CRU temperatures. Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That with an army of volunteers to photograph American thermometer stations has found that far too many are located next to air conditioner exhausts, trash burners, reflective concrete walls and other temperature-corrupting elements. Except for the satellite temperatures from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) which are relatively recent — we don’t have any reliable temperature records.

Weather can be defined as what’s going on outside today. Predictions come as a 5-Day Forecast, not a 50 year estimate. Climate is an average for a large area, but you can’t predict that for 50 years either. In fact, scientists are beginning to wonder if the idea of a global climate average is in any way meaningful. Think that one through — how would you get a meaningful global temperature average?

CO2 is only a minor and beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. By far the largest and most extensive “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. We just don’t understand clouds very well.

James Taranto points out interesting reporting on”illegally leaked” emails by the New York Times in today’s “Best of the Web” at the Wall Street Journal. Made me laugh.

— “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”–New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009

— “The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.”–New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010

Dr. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain has stepped down in the ClimateGate scandal. The CRU is one of the world’s three sources for the temperatures that inform the world of the state of global climate.

This last week, Dr. Jones did a startling concessionary interview in which he admitted that there has been no global warming since 1995. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming. He conceded that there was a possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now. The original raw data collected from weather stations around the world and analyzed by his unit may have been lost. He admitted that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.

Months after the original exposure of emails and code from the CRU in the ClimateGate scandal, this was major news across the world. The Washington Post, however, somehow neglected to mention it. But that’s not all:

# No mention by the New York Times
# No mention by USA Today
# No mention by ANY major U.S. newspaper EXCEPT the Washington Times
# No mention by the Associated Press
# No mention by Reuters
# No mention by UPI
# No mention by ABC News
# No mention by CBS News
# No mention by NBC News
# No mention by MSNBC

CNN brought Dr. John Christy on air to talk about it. This is not just a failure of the major climate reporting agencies, but a failure of American journalism. Journalists in this country have been deeply involved in promoting alarm about global warming, and in suppressing any skeptical voice. Apparently that continues.

Once again journalists are more interested in promoting the world they prefer, than in reporting the news. And they wonder why newspapers and news organizations are losing circulation.

Lord Christopher Monckton has been on a speaking tour in Australia, and wowing audiences. He has the facts at the tip of his fingers and can document everything he says. He’s an entertaining speaker.

Christopher Monckton recently appeared in Melbourne, Australia before an enthusiastic audience to explain, once again, the fraud of the global warming scam. The IPCC has a lot to answer for, as does the profession of journalism. England has been far more invested in the panic over climate change, but even there, reality is beginning to penetrate.

The newspapers in the United Kingdom have been much more ready to expose the University of East Anglia’s CRU and the scandal of ClimateGate, than American papers. Committed warmists don’t intend to give up without a fight. And with the exposure of ClimateGate, more cases of fraud and suppression of evidence have appeared. Enjoy.

One of the more interesting moments in the State of the Union speech was when Obama said ” I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” and the audience burst into laughter. It appeared that the president was a little nonplussed, uncertain as to why there was laughter.

One real clunker in the president’s speech was his pledge to cap discretionary spending, and he promised to “incentivize” America’s commercial energy sector. His passion for “clean energy” and “green jobs” has not faded.

The president seems unaware of ClimateGate, IPCC-Gate, GlacierGate, AmazonGate or the increasing evidence of fudged figures in all sectors of the climate monitoring effort. I apologize for using the trite “Gate” suffix, but it is a quick way to indicate scandal.

The efforts of governmental bodies about climate were directed toward discovering the extent to which human influences were the cause of global warming, what dangers the warming might indicate for the future, and what governments could or should do about it.

It seemed an urgent problem and money— big money— flowed. But it flowed to those who could demonstrate the problems, not to those whose work indicated that warming seemed to be a natural phenomenon. It was easy for scientists, hungry for grants, to favor evidence that indicated warming, and de-emphasize that which didn’t. Or to leave the stations that showed no warming out of the lot. Just little fudges here and there.

It is going to take time for it all to shake out, but indications are that alarmist fears of problems derived from increases in climate warming are misplaced. The consequences of not understanding a cooling planet or even a planet comfortable in the same kind of warming and cooling that has been going on for centuries are immense.

Businesses envisioning vast profits from governmental funding of wind farms and solar arrays are inclined to extol the advantages of their products. What energy a wind turbine is rated to produce under optimum conditions, for example, is quite different from what it actually does produce when the wind blows only intermittently or occasionally. When the wind does not blow at the right speed, the grid requires full-time back-up from a conventional energy source.

Wind farms and solar arrays, though ugly, are glamorous. Saving the planet elevates one to a higher plane than that occupied by those not so engaged. Think of the cachet of that which is organic, sustainable, or natural. Think of the vast new governmental departments, the industries, the money, the prestige, the power. Hard to give up those dreams simply because there is some question whether there is really any global warming at all.

At a time of double-digit unemployment, an economy in recession, out-of-control government spending, and rising deficits, it seems unwise to invest money in schemes that have proved to be a failure in Europe, killing two jobs for every one created.

The president is a true believer. He has barely disguised contempt for those who do not share his certainty that he is pursuing the noble course. There will be “green” jobs, even if the government has to pay for every one with taxpayer money. And they will be added to the “created or saved” ledger that is a fixture of fantasy-land. The planet will be saved. And Obama will be its savior.

Limitless billions in federal loan guarantees will create wind, solar, clean coal and nuclear projects — the lobbyists insist that the loan guarantees are off budget, and all will be repaid, so they are as good as being free. Easy. The CBO estimates, for example, that roughly half of the nuclear projects would default. How to pay for it all?

The president has urged the Senate to approve the House-passed cap-and-trade legislation. It would create a Clean Energy Development Administration to administer the loans and use carbon-emission taxes to cover any defaults. Another federal disaster.

Rising unemployment, record-breaking deficits and guess who gets a $541,184 grant from the Stimulus plan? Dr. Michael Mann, under investigation at Pennsylvania State University, a central figure in the ClimateGate scandal,and the author of the discredited “hockey stick” graph on which the misleading IPCC assessments were based gets over a half a million.

Professor Mann is under investigation by the University because of his activities with a circle of climate scientists who appeared to be engaged in falsification of data in boosting their case for global warming. Emails, documents and computer code released from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, revealed discussions about manipulation of data, and efforts to stifle opposing views and interfere with their publication.

The Obama administration apparently believes that it doesn’t much matter where the money goes in the economy. The simple fact of spending taxpayer money and newly borrowed money will somehow fix everything, and if spending some doesn’t work, they’ll just spend more.

Far too much money has gone to reward campaign contributors, carved out special favors for the favored, and now has rewarded loyalists in the climate change debate. (Environmental organizations were big donors too).

All very nice politically, but it is not surprising that Obama’s stimulus plan has failed to create jobs. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to promote the administration’s position on global warming theory.

To be fair, the grant was initiated in June 2009, but after the ClimateGate scandal broke, one would assume someone would say oops! not a good idea. The White House has not grasped that the scandal puts the whole global warming theory into the reconsider basket.

The administration announced Friday the awarding of $2.3 billion in tax credits — from last year’s stimulus bill — to companies that create “green jobs.” The announcement was obviously timed to counter the bad news that the country lost another 85,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate remained in double digits.

“Building a robust clean-energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future — jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced,” President Obama said Friday.

He says the grants will create 17,000 clean tech jobs. That’s $135,294 per job. The experience of Spain, Britain, Germany and Denmark with “clean energy” and “green jobs” suggests that not only will this not work, but that 2.5 jobs will be lost in the regular economy for every “green job” created.

Liberals are never interested in evidence or experience. More money always solves the problem. The administration wants Congress to approve another $5 billion for “tens of thousands” more “green jobs.”